SH 

361 

KSSAGE Oi-" THE PKSSIDENT 
0¥ THE UNITED STATES OH EUK 

SEALS. 

Cuzninunicated to Congress, 

January 6, 1513, 




Glass 


ft H ^ f^ i 


Rook 


.U4 




; -1 f ^: 

1 V 1 W 



62d Congress \ 
3d Session j 



SENATE 



f Document 
I No. 997 



MESSAGE 

OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE 

UNITED STATES 



ON 



FUR SEALS 



COMMUNICATED TO THE 
TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS 
WEDNESDAY,JANUARY8,1913 




January 9, 1913. — Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 
and ordered to be printed 



WASHINGTON 
1913 







D, CF D, 
IAN 13 1913 



MESSAGE. 



To the Senate and House of Representatives: 

At the last session of Congress an act was adopted to give effect to 
the fur-seal treaty of July 7, 1911, between Great Britain, Japan, 
Russia, and the United States, m which act was incorporated a pro- 
vision establishing a five-year period durmg wliich the killing of seals 
upon the Pribilof Islands is prohibited. Prior to the passage of this 
act, I pointed out in my message to Congress, on August 14 last, the 
inadvisabihty of adopting legislation the effect of which was to 
require this Government to suspend the kilhng of surplus male seals 
on land before it was actually proved by the test of experience and 
scientific investigation that such suspension of killing was necessary 
for the protection and preservation of the seal herd. I also pointed 
out in that message that the other Governments interested might 
justly complam if this Government by prohibitiaig all land killing 
should deprive them of their expected share of the skins taken 
on land, unless we can show by satisfactory evidence that this course 
was adopted as the result of changed conditions justifying a change 
in our previous attitude on the subject. As was then anticipated, 
the other parties interested have now objected to the suspension 
thus imposed on the ground that it is contrary to the spirit, if not 
the letter of the treaty, inasinuch as under existing conditions a 
substantial number of male seals not required for breedmg purposes 
can be killed annually without detriment to the reproductive capacity 
of the herd. The same objection was raised by the other Govern- 
ments mterested under this convention while the bill was awaiting 
my signature, after its passage by Congress, but I refrained from 
vetoing it because at that time several thousand sealskins had 
already been taken on the islands and were ready for distribution 
in accordance with the requirements of the treaty, so that the sus- 
pension of land killing would not actually become effective until the 
following year, and I was satisfied that the information resultmg from 
a study of the condition of the herd during the past summer would 
put this Government in possession of facts which would either lead 
to the amendment of the act at this session of Congress, or enable 
this Government to justify a temporary suspension of land killing; 
and apart from this particular provision, the act was needed to give 
effect to our treatv obligations. 

It now a])pears that under the operation of the fur-seal convention 
during the ])ast year the condition and size of the herd has improved 
to an extent which seems to indicate that there is now no necessity, 
and therefore no justification, for the suspension of all land killing of 
male seals, as required by the act under consideration. 

Last season's reports from the officials in charge on the Pribilof 
Islands show that the herd which the vear before contained at the 



4 TUB SEALS. 

highest estimate not more than 140,000 seals, now numbers upward 
of 215,000 by actual count, showing in one season an increase of at 
least 75,000 seals. This increase is largely due to the protection 
afforded by the treaty to the breeding female seals, which last sum- 
mer numbered nearly 82,000, many thousands of which, except for 
the treaty, would have been slaughtered by the pelagic sealers, and 
as every breeding female adds one pup to the herd each year, over 
81,000 new pups were added last season. Moreover, instead of losing 
10,000 or 15,000 of these pups through starvation as heretofore on 
account of the slaughter of the nursing mothers by pelagic sealers, 
this summer by actual count the munber of dead pups found on the 
rookeries w^as only 1,060. 

It is evident from these reports that there has been a very remark- 
able increase in the size of the herd in one season under the operation 
of this convention and that a large part of this increase consists of 
female seals, upon which the future increase of the herd depends. 

The present condition of the herd shows that there will be about 
100,000 breeding female seals in the herd next summer, each one of 
which will produce one pup, and in the following year the female 
pups born last summer, amounting in accordance wdth the laws of 
nature to one-half of the total number of the year's pups, will pass 
into the breeding class, subject to losses from natural mortality, thus 
adding a possible 40,000 more, which would bring the total up in the 
neighborhood of 140,000 breeding female seals; and so on from year 
to year the reproductive strength of the herd will increase in almost 
geometrical ])rogression, so that we can confidently count on having 
the present size of the herd doubled and trebled within a very short 
period. 

All that is required to fulfill these expectations is to protect abso- 
lutely the female seals and set aside an adequate number of male 
seals for breeding pvnposes. The protection and preservation of the 
herd does not require the protection and preservation of the surplus 
male seals not needed for breeding purposes. Owing to the polyga- 
mous habits of the seals, the increase in the number of these surplus 
bachelor seals can in no conceivable way increase the birth rate or 
the reproductive capacity of the herd. Seals of this class contribute 
nothing to the welfare of the herd, and in some ways they are a dis- 
tinct detriment as a disturbing element on the rookeries and as con- 
sumers of food, which is bound to become scarcer as the size of the 
herd increases. These nonbreeding males, therefore, ; re of no value 
as members of the herd, except to fm-nish skins for the market in 
place of those heretofore taken by pelagic sealers, and in this connec- 
tion it should be noted that the value of their skins for commercial 
purposes diminishes after they are 4 years old and ceases altogether 
after the age of 5 or 6. 

It is right and necessary that the killmg of all seals m the herd 
other than the nonbreeding males should be absolutely prohibited 
not only for five years but forever. Land killmg has been and 
always must be strictly limited by law to male seals, so that female 
seals would never be included m land killing in any event. Pelagic 
sealing, on the other hand, always has been chiefly directed against 
female seals, thus diminishing the size of the herd not merely by the 
number actually killed each year but also by an equal number of 
nursing puj)S killed by starvation and by the loss of the countless 



FUR SEALS. 

number of unborn, pups which would have been added to the herd 
the following year and m succeeding years. Pelagic sealing has now 
been stopped, but it must be remembered that the United States 
alone was powerless to stop it. An international agreement was 
necessary for that purpose, and has at last been secured after diffi- 
cult and protracted negotiations resulting in the present convention 
with Great Britam, Japan, and Russia, who have now joined with 
us in prohibiting pelagic sealing, and whose cooperation is necessary 
to make that prohibition effective. To secure such an agreement 
has been the aim of the United States throughout the entire period 
covered by the fur-seal controversy, and from the point of view of 
the United States this prohibition against pelagic sealmg is the most 
important feature of the present convention. In order, however, to 
secure its adoption by Great Britam and Japan it was necessary for 
the United States to agree to give each of them a share of the proceeds 
of the annual increase of the American herd with the assurance, as 
an inducement, that a large annual increase available for commercial 
purposes would result from the abandonment of pelagic sealing. As 
stated in my former message to Congress on this subject: 

Ever since the question of land killing of seals was subjected to scientific investi- 
gation, soon after the fur-seal controversy arose, nearly 25 years ago, this Goyernnent 
has invariably insisted throughout the protracted and almost continuous diplomatic 
negotiations which have ensued for the settlement of this controversy thatthe pro- 
gressive diminution of the herd was due to the killing of seals at sea, and that if pelagic 
sealing was discontinued the polygamous habits of the seals would make it possible 
to kill annually on land a large number of surplus males without detriment to the 
reproductive capacity of the herd and without interfering with the normal growth of 
the size of the herd. The position thus taken by the United States has always been 
put forward and relied on by the United States in urging that an international agree- 
ment should be entered into prohibiting pelagic sealing; and it is obvious that one 
of the considerations which induced Great Britain and Japan to enter into this con- 
vention prohibiting their subjects from pelagic sealing was the expectation that the 
position thus taken by the United States was well founded and that the skins falling 
to the share of those "Governments from the land killing of seals, as provided for in 
this convention, would compensate them for abandoning the taking of sealskins at 
sea. 

It was well understood by all the parties in entering into this con- 
vention that the result aimed at was to increase the annual repro- 
ductive capacity of the herd, so that a larger number of sealskins 
might be taken each year for commercial purposes without mjury to 
the welfare of the herd. 

It is evident from these considerations that the United States is 
in honor bound under this convention to permit the killing annually 
for commercial purposes of male seals not required as a reserve for 
breeding before they have passed beyond the age when their skins 
cease to have a commercial value. 

The question of how many male seals should be reserved each year 
for breeding purposes can readily be determined. In tlie act under 
consideration, as it i)assed the House and before it was amended in the 
Senate, there was a provision that hereafter only 3 year old males 
shall be killed, and that there shall be reserved from among the finest 
and most perfect seals of that age not fewer tlian 2,000 in 191.3, 2,500 
in 1914, 3,000 in 1915, 3,500 in 1916, and 4,000 each year from 1917 
to 1921, inclusive, and 5,000 each year thereafter during the continu- 
ance of the convention. These figures were arrived at after full and 
careful investigation by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 



'6 FUR SEALS. 

and it a])pcars from tlie committee reports accompanying this act 
that those ligui s were intended to be and were regarded as large 
enough to be on the safe side. It would be more appropriate and 
convenient to lea>'e the decision of this question to the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor, subject to the limitation, which might properly 
be imposed, that each year before any commercial killing is done 
there sliould be marked and set aside or reserved from among the 
finest and best of the males of 3 years of age such number as is neces- 
sary, in his judgment, to provide an ample breeding reserve of males. 
In any event it is evident that the determination of the number of 
male seals to be reserved each year for this purpose wiU present no 
diflicidty; and in this connection it should be noted, as stated in my 
former message on this subject, that — 

since the fur-seal business has been taken over by the Government and no private 
interests are now concerned in making a profit out of it, there is no urgent necessity 
for imposing by legislation stringent limitations upon land killing. 

The only provision in the convention authorising the L nited 
States to limit or suspend land Idlling is tlie reservation in Article X 
that notliing therein contained shall restrict the right of the I nited 
States at any time and from time to time to suspend altogether the 
taking of sealskins on its islands and to impose such restrictions and 
regulations upon the total number of skins to be taken in any season, 
and the manner and times and places of taking them, "as may seem 
necessary to protect and preserve the seal herd or to increase its 
number." It is clear from the terms of the convention that the 
right thus reserved to the United States to regulate or suspend 
land killing is not an arbitrary right, but can be exercised only when 
necessary to protect or preserve or increase the herd. It is also 
clear that this provision must be read in connection with the main 
purpose of the convention, and that the right reserved should be 
exercised in aid of that purpose. It has already been shown that the 
result aimed at by this convention was to increase the annual repro- 
ductive capacity of the herd, so that a larger number of sealskins 
might be taken each year for commercial purposes without injury to 
the welfare of the lierd. It follows, thore;"ore, that when a limitation 
or suspension of land killing would interfere with, rather than pro- 
mote, this purpose of the convention there would then be not only 
no necessity but no justilication for such limitation or suspension. 

The argument has been advanced tli.'U in addition to the right 
thus reserved th'^ convention recogniz d an aljsolate right in the 
United Statr^s arbitrarily to suspend all land killing, l)ecause, accord- 
ing to tliis argum?nt, anoth^n- clause of tlr^ convention fix^s a measure 
of damag.^s to be paid each y^ar to th > oth^r parti 's whenever the 
UnitcMl States prohil its all land killing, The clause referred to is 
found in Article XF. whicli provid ^s that in case the United States 
shall absolutely proliibit all land killing (^f seals, th-^n it shall pay to 
Great Britain and Japan each the sum of $10,000 annually in lieu of 
their share of skins during the years wii?n no killing is allowed It 
is evid-mt, however, from an examination of th'^ otlier provisions of 
the sam? clause of the convention that th'>se $10,000 payments cannot 
be, and were not intended to be, regarded as a measure of damages, 
because Great Britain and Japan are re(|uired to repay them to the 
United States witli interest at 4 per cent out of the ])r()ceeds of their 



FUR SEALS. 7 

share of the skins taken whenever hind kiUing is resumed. A pay- 
ment which is subsequently to be refunded clearly is not a measure 
of damages. Moreover, even if this provision could be regarded as 
fixing a measure of damages, that in itself would not justify the 
United States in arbitrarily imposing those damages upon Great 
Britain and Japan. These provisions requiring the $10,000 payments 
to be made when land killing is suspended and to be refunded when 
killing is resumed, clearly have an ulterior purpose, otherwise they 
are wholly unnecessary, for the same result would have been ac- 
complished with much greater simplicity by omitting them altogether. 
The ulterior purpose becomes perfectly clear when we consider that 
under the laws in force when the treaty was made it was within the 
power of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to suspend land 
killing altogether whenever in his opinion the welfare of the herd 
required such action. The evident purpose, therefore, of this re- 
quirement for making substantial payments when land killing was 
suspended, was to prevent the suspension of land killing by Executive 
action unless Congress was prepared to appropriate the money 
necessary for making such payments. It was undoubtedly assumed 
that the necessity for adopting legislation appropriating the money 
to make these payments would lead to a careful investigation of 
whether or not the actual condition of the herd warranted a total 
suspension of land killing, and that the appropriation would not be 
made unless the invr'stigation produced satisfactory evidence that 
such suspension of killing was absolutely necessary within the require- 
ments of the treaty. 

In view of the present condition of the herd and the very marked 
increase in its size and particularly in the number of female seals, 
which has resulted from the operation of this convention during a 
single year, and which, as above shown, is to be attributed almost 
wholly to the protection afforded by the prohibition against pelagic 
sealing, I recommend to Congress the immediate consideration of 
whether or not the complete suspension of land killing imposed by 
this act is now necessary for the protection and preservation of the 
herd, and for increasing its number within the meaning and for the 
purposes of the convention. If no actual necessity is found for such 
suspension then it is not justified under the convention, and the act 
should be amended accordingly. 

As stated in my annual message to Congress in December last, it 
is important that in case there is any uncertainty as to the real neces- 
sity for suspending all land killing, this Government should yield 
on that point rather than give the slightest ground for the charge that 
we have been in any way remiss in observing our treaty obligations. 
I also wish to impress upon Congress that, as stated in my former 
message on this subject, it is essential in dealing with it not only to 
fulfill the obligations imposed upon the United States by the letter 
and the spirit of the convention, but also to consider the interests 
of the other parties to the convention, for their cooperation is neces- 
sary to make it an effective and permanent settlement of the fur-seal 
controversy. 

Wm. H. Taft. 

The White House, January 8, 1913. 

o 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



002 894 212 6 



